Hoot v. State

194 S.W.2d 97, 149 Tex. Crim. 316, 1946 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 762
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedMay 1, 1946
DocketNo. 23338.
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 194 S.W.2d 97 (Hoot v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hoot v. State, 194 S.W.2d 97, 149 Tex. Crim. 316, 1946 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 762 (Tex. 1946).

Opinion

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was_ convicted of drunken driving on a public highway, and fined the sum of $50.00, and he appeals.

It is claimed that fundamental error is shown herein in that the offense is alleged to have been committed on December 1, 1945, and the information filed on the same date failed to allege that such offense occurred anterior to the presentment of the information as prescribed in Art. 414, C. C. P., para. 6. We find tht such a complaint relative to the information is borne out by the record.

We think the case of Cobb v. State, 139 S. W. (2d) 272, in the opinion on rehearing, to be decisive of this matter, and we quote therefrom:

“Appellant files a motion calling attention to a matter which makes it necessary to change our order reversing and remanding of date April 24, 1940, to an order reversing and ordering a dismissal of the prosecution under the present information. The defect in the information was pointed out in appellant’s brief but was overlooked on original submission.

*317 “The offense was alleged to have been committed on December 9, 1939. Both the complaint and information were filed that same day. It is averred in the complaint that the offense was committed ‘before the making of this complaint,’ but no such averment is found in the information. The statute, Art. 414, C. C. P. (1925) Subdivision 6, requires that the time alleged in the information be ‘some date anterior to the filing of the information.’ It is held in Kennedy v. State, 22 Tex. App. 693, 3 S. W. 480, that the requisite mentioned must be apparent from the information itself, and that the complaint cannot be resorted to for supplying the omission from the information.”

The cause is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed under the present information.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Bumguardner v. State
237 S.W.2d 308 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1950)
Cockrell v. State
227 S.W.2d 216 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1950)
Randall v. State
225 S.W.2d 192 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1949)
Martini v. State
205 S.W.2d 988 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1947)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
194 S.W.2d 97, 149 Tex. Crim. 316, 1946 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 762, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoot-v-state-texcrimapp-1946.